It is more than just the technicals, though those alone make your proclaiming of GB and TB blocks out right insane, it is about maintaining the incentives. A big part of with is, I validate my money MYSELF. And that I can afford to do so, MYSELF. Paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on special purpose computers to validate my money is not cost effective, and not a sound and motivating incentive structure Roger.

no, he thinks everything in this world runs on a giant CPU with 1 core and a single thread. lol

Core's roadmap. We get a blocksize increase(bigger than the one Roger is pushing for), fix malleability, add compatibility for LN, and through raising the blocksize to a maximum of 4 MB increase the possible transaction throughput of the network to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second, not just doubling it to 14 tx/s.

Oh, and maybe you should ask Roger why he is intentionally disrupting testing on testnet? If he is soo enlightened and behind raising the transaction throughput, WHY IS HE ACTIVELY SABOTAGING TESTS ON THAT BY MINING ON TESTNET?

Wrong Roger, using layered approaches like Lightning Network and sidechains, it can scale thousands of times past todays transactional capacity while still maintaining the incentive balance by keeping validation costs low.

And also what is this comment supposed to mean? Your way of doing things only works so far until it hits problems, so just full speed at that brick wall anyway? You are just going to ignore technical reality and how the changes you propose weaken the quality of bitcoin that makes it valuable in the first place?

Okay, after mulling it over I think I found the source of your misunderstanding. It is by no means safe to just push up against that limit Roger. Keep in mind 10 minutes is the statistical *average* a block is found. The more you move towards that limit, the more of a potential problem this can cause. The bigger you make blocks, the more periods of high luck will cause problems because you are being sent a new block before validating the old one. 

You cannot just push up to that limit, even more TOWARDS that limit starts to cause performance issues. Just fucking accept it Roger, you're a good guy at heart, but stop pretending you understand any of this when you clearly don't. Instead of being a sound public figure to advocate for the ideology beyond Bitcoin, and the social movements it will create, you are making yourself look like an idiot by speaking on matters you do not understand. Just stop it Roger. This is a 100% technical matter. The economics get involved when looking at how the system is FUNCTIONING. Economics will ALWAYS have to take a backseat to technical realities, and adapt to what is possible. Otherwise what you are suggesting is lets turn Bitcoin into a centralized service like Paypal, where nodes can refuse to relay your transactions for not using ID, being from somewhere they don't like, without paying a "membership fee" to use a nodes services. I do not think you want that, I don't want that, and I'm pretty sure most users don't want that.

Just be a man, step back a second, and realize you are WRONG here Roger. It does NOT make you a stupid person. It does NOT make you a bad person. It just makes you WRONG. And the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can all get back to being a productive community.

bitcoind is slow

That's not the only operation in tx verification in a block; the signatures have to be verified (the expensive bit), the inputs have to be checked against the utxo set, and the scripts need to be executed.

It's not that simple.